The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users • Hacker News Board

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#121

Post by voyou » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 8:46 AM UTC

kvb wrote: post #72

kevingadd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emscripten cross-compiled codecs are better than black-box, closed source DRM codecs built into partially or fully proprietary browsers like Chrome and Internet Explorer. Do you really think a DRM plugin would ever work in Firefox or Chromium? If they really want to ship DRM, they can do it using the same tools everyone else uses, without special monopoly-preserving treatment or 'protected media paths' or kernel hook…

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

"What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies"

It's the same as the DRM-encumbered business model: make movies and charge people to watch them. DRM doesn't make that model any more or less effective.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#122

Post by surrealize » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:06 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

The web doesn't need DRM any more than broadcast TV needed the broadcast flag. Content producers said that the broadcast flag was necessary, and that without it they wouldn't allow their content to be broadcast.

In that case, there was a bunch of push-back against the broadcast flag, the proposal died, and now all kinds of stuff gets broadcast in the clear. When push came to shove, the content producers didn't actually need the broadcast flag, and their business models still work without it just as well as they did before.

The same needs to happen with the EME proposal; people who care about this kind of thing need to push back and kill it just like with the broadcast flag.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#123

Post by yarrel » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:06 AM UTC

cleverjake wrote: post #73

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different, how? It's different in several ways. For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; meaning it's designed specifically with 1 use case in mind. Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality; I'm not aware of any other instance where a web API is created to disable features of a user's computer. I'm sure we can rattle off more ways that it is different, but I'm not sure what…

>> For one it's not a plugin framework, it's a DRM plugin framework; A DRM plugin framework is by definition a plugin framework. I relly don't want DRM in html either, but I have a hard time finding logical arguments against it, and I don't see how this is a good one. If you could further your point, I would love to hear it. >> Secondly its expressed intent is to take away functionality Take away what functionality?…

A DRM API in HTML5 harms users by legitimizing and enabling restrictive technology under the banner of the free and open web, with all the practical harm (lack of control, reduced bargaining power, security issues) that loss of freedom entails.

If the framework is no different from existing frameworks, why do we need it?

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#124

Post by PeterisP » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:11 AM UTC

rocky1138 wrote: post #5

What's the solution? Forking html?

As we well know from web history, the standards aren't mandatory - if a part of the W3C standard is broken by design, then the next step is to lobby the major browser makers to ensure that in practice the implemented de-facto standard does not include these DRM terms.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#125

Post by mtgx » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:21 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

Then consumers should revolt, because all this really does is limit on how many devices they can play the content on. And I think everyone hates that.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#126

Post by progrock » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:22 AM UTC

_pmf_ wrote: post #105

kvb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can the "lazy big media companies" adapt? What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public?

> What's the DRM-free business model that would allow them to produce the blockbuster movies that are apparently still quite popular with the public? That's something they have to care about, not I. I have the right to say "fuck you" and not give a shit about their business model. They had ample time to at least make a feeble try to start adapting, but so far this has not happened. I see a "blockbuster" movie about t…

Not to mention the dross is gumming up the tubes!

Having said that, this is more a question of content delivery than the actual content.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#127

Post by progrock » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 9:31 AM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #125

cromwellian wrote: post #29

Consumers don't care about implementation, they only care about the content, and until they do, suppliers of content hold all the cards. There is nothing to be won by resisting hooks for DRM in the browser however appealing it seems to take a principled stand. The content suppliers will gleefully go with native apps, flash, silverlight, even Emscripten-cross-compiled codecs. With content consumption going mobile, the…

Then consumers should revolt, because all this really does is limit on how many devices they can play the content on. And I think everyone hates that.

Only when they experience the problem first hand!

My brother is a novice computer user, he ripped all his CDs into his music library through windows media player as WMA files. I tried explaining that he'd be better off with a 'free' format, but he didn't care, or rather hadn't the need to care.

Later he acquired an iPod. Then he was totally baffled as to why he couldn't play his WMA files on his iPod. Anyway he went on to transcode using iTunes all his WMA files to probably M4a files. And has no idea that he has potentially thrown some data down the drain in the process.

I'd like to see his face if he then bought a device that couldn't play M4a, but WMA files!

Oh for the glory days of picking up a CD and your ghetto blaster and moving it from room to room.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#128

Post by CJefferson » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 10:31 AM UTC

andyhmltn wrote: post #118

CJefferson wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is at least one game I would have pirated, but could not find a functional pirated copy of, so I bought it on steam. If steam had no DRM I am confident it would have been much easier for me to pirate it (I would have copied it from the friend who suggested it to me).

IMO DRM has nothing to do with piracy in a lot of people (at least who I've spoken to.) It's more about convenience. I went to pirate a film last year. Mind you, it was a film I had purchased but I didn't have it on holiday with me so I thought about just downloading it on a torrent site. But then I noticed YouTube offered the same movie for £2.50 rental, streamed on a fast connection in HD 1080p. That is what stoppe…

Is it possible that you (and people you have spoken to) have more disposable income to buy entertainment than they have time to consume that entertainment? People above that line are happy to spend more money to save even small amounts of time.

People below that line often want to pirate, to allow them to spend their money on other things.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#129

Post by Silhouette » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 11:04 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #108

Silhouette wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think associating DRM in general with terms like "spyware" is particularly helpful. There is some overlap, of course, but fundamentally most DRM schemes don't install the kinds of keyloggers and such that are usually associated with spyware. That said, I have no problem with regulating what DRM schemes can do by law, so that it's clear that doing actual spyware-like things is illegal, or perhaps requiring tha…

> it can't collectively be trusted in this respect You are missing an important point - pirates will pirate. That's it. DRM or not - they will. Respect was referring those who are decent people and are willing to support the creators. By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself. But in my view, their inner desire for control outw…

By not treating these people who are potential customers with respect (by the mere fact of using DRM), content industry hurts itself.

Yes, it does. I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that. The question isn't whether DRM causes harm, it's whether it also causes a greater benefit for a net win.

But in my view, their inner desire for control outweighs any reason and logic.

You might also want to consider the possibility that the executives running these Big Media giants are well aware of the balancing act we're talking about, have access to much more information about the real costs and benefits of DRM schemes than you or I do, and have made a sound business decision based on the empirical data in front of them.

It's certainly possible that some businesses or executives are naive about this or have made a bad call on a close decision. However, the idea that entire industries operating on the level we're talking about have basically come to the same conclusion, and maintained that view for quite a long time now, despite the significant costs in both cash and reputation of employing DRM techniques... Even with all the nepotism and short-term thinking at the top of big business, that just doesn't fit with your implication that DRM doesn't really make any difference.

Re: The W3C's plan for DRM in HTML5 is a betrayal for all web users

#130

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 11:11 AM UTC

Just wondering, is there any provision in any OSS license (or scope to add one) that prevents the code being used in any DRM software or firmware?

I know it wouldn't act retrospectively, and I'm not sure if any OSS libraries are actually in use in any DRM software, but it may at least set a trend. I'd love to see the next open source game changer be open to all except those who oppose openness :-)